SC voids marriage over false cohabitation claim

The marriage of a couple was voided by the Supreme Court (SC) after it found that they falsely claimed five years of cohabitation to avoid obtaining a marriage license.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting dated 24 February 2026, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition seeking to declare the couple’s marriage valid despite the absence of a marriage license.

The couple had lived together as husband and wife since December 2003. In 2006, the husband left for Israel to work and returned in 2009 to marry his wife.

To facilitate their marriage without the required license, the couple executed an Affidavit of Cohabitation, claiming they had lived together for six years and were thus exempt from the marriage license requirement under the Family Code.

The husband, in 2013, filed a petition to declare the marriage void, arguing that the affidavit they executed was false because he was in Israel for most of the period it covered.

The petition was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which found that the couple had not actually lived together continuously for five years before the marriage.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that the husband’s absence from 2006 to 2009 interrupted the required period of cohabitation. It also held that the affidavit could not substitute for a marriage license.

The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition before the SC, arguing that cohabitation does not require constant physical presence and that the husband’s work in Israel did not end the relationship, as he returned to the Philippines for the wedding.

It also argued that he could not claim the affidavit was false after voluntarily executing it and using it to obtain a marriage license exemption.

In disagreeing, the SC said that under Article 3(2) of the Family Code, one of the formal requisites of a marriage is a valid marriage license.

It explained that Article 34 provides an exception to this requirement for couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry each other.

The couple must state these facts in an affidavit, while the solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement attesting that no legal restriction exists.

The high bench, citing Niñal v. Bayadog, reiterated that the five-year cohabitation period is counted back from the marriage date. The couple must have lived together continuously and exclusively, without interruption or a third party.

The SC clarified that temporary absence does not interrupt cohabitation if the couple otherwise continued living as husband and wife — for example, by sharing a home and expenses or publicly presenting themselves as a couple.

The SC found that the couple failed to meet the five-year requirement. From 2001 to 2004, before the husband left for Israel, they lived separately and only occasionally shared a rented room with relatives.

From 2005 to 2009, while the husband was in Israel, there was no evidence that they presented themselves as spouses or that he intended to return to the Philippines to live with his wife.

The court found that the husband’s testimony showed that the couple had not lived together continuously for five years, making their affidavit to the solemnizing officer false.

His testimony also supported the finding that they failed to meet the five-year requirement.